• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we go into Syria

Should we go into Syria

  • Yes, the red line has been crossed

    Votes: 23 13.9%
  • No way Jose, not our problem

    Votes: 143 86.1%

  • Total voters
    166
Wow, that is some revisionist history.
How were things going for a Russian invasion to Germany after Stalingrad?
Russia came swooping in after Germany had been beaten back to its own borders.
Which border? Not the Russian one. It 'came swooping in' with the onset of attack. Germany's intel was for ****. Russian units were joining the fray, of which the Germans had no prior awareness of.

What's revisionism is the comic book adaptation of history that has America joining the war fresh, after two years of sitting it all out, and somehow saving the day. Please. You guys only just managed to pull off D-Day, and you only won the war in the Pacific with nukes.
 
Last edited:
Which border? Not the Russian one. It 'came swooping in' with the onset of attack. Germany's intel was for ****. Russian units were joining the fray, of which the Germans had no prior awareness of.

What's revisionism is the comic book adaptation of history that has America joining the war fresh, after two years of sitting it all out, and somehow saving the day. Please. You guys only just managed to pull off D-Day, and you only won the war in the Atlantic with nukes.

For the first two years of the war the Soviet Union wasn't fighting Germany either, but rather supporting it. So the US joined the war against Germany all of 6 months after the Soviets. And the Soviet Union received massive aid from the US.
 
Which border? Not the Russian one. It 'came swooping in' with the onset of attack. Germany's intel was for ****. Russian units were joining the fray, of which the Germans had no prior awareness of.

What's revisionism is the comic book adaptation of history that has America joining the war fresh, after two years of sitting it all out, and somehow saving the day. Please. You guys only just managed to pull off D-Day, and you only won the war in the Atlantic with nukes.

Japan used to be in the Atlantic? ;)
 
Russia came swooping in after Germany had been beaten back to its own borders.

By whom? The USA? Nope, by the USSR itself.
How were things going for a Russian invasion to Germany after Stalingrad?
Pretty well. Apart from a couple of repulsed offensives, the Soviets were in attack mode from the surrender of the German 6th Army onwards. The Germans's defeat was inevitable from Summer-'43 onwards; a year before there even was a western front.
 
For the first two years of the war the Soviet Union wasn't fighting Germany either, but rather supporting it. So the US joined the war against Germany all of 6 months after the Soviets. And the Soviet Union received massive aid from the US.
A pretty pivotal '6 months', considering the span of Barbarossa, and that during that time, Germany got rolled. Barbarossa involved Russia facing something like a dozen times as many units as we did. We only gained a foothold in Europe at all, because Russia dealt such a fatal blow to Germany in the first place. Face it, they could have destroyed Germany alone.
 
Which border? Not the Russian one. It 'came swooping in' with the onset of attack. Germany's intel was for ****. Russian units were joining the fray, of which the Germans had no prior awareness of.

What's revisionism is the comic book adaptation of history that has America joining the war fresh, after two years of sitting it all out, and somehow saving the day. Please. You guys only just managed to pull off D-Day, and you only won the war in the Atlantic with nukes.
Yea, right.
 
By whom? The USA? Nope, by the USSR itself.

Pretty well. Apart from a couple of repulsed offensives, the Soviets were in attack mode from the surrender of the German 6th Army onwards. The Germans's defeat was inevitable from Summer-'43 onwards; a year before there even was a western front.
Amen.
 
A pretty pivotal '6 months', considering the span of Barbarossa, and that during that time, Germany got rolled. Barbarossa involved Russia facing something like a dozen times as many units as we did. We only gained a foothold in Europe at all, because Russia dealt such a fatal blow to Germany in the first place. Face it, they could have destroyed Germany alone.

Russia wouldn't have survived without massive US aid. And if Britain hadn't continued fighting (with massive US aid) after June 1940 then the Soviet Union would have been overwhelmed by the Germans.

Remember the Soviet Union was the ally of Germany for 2 years, while Britain and the US stood up to Germany.
 
Russia wouldn't have survived without massive US aid. And if Britain hadn't continued fighting (with massive US aid) after June 1940 then the Soviet Union would have been overwhelmed by the Germans.

Remember the Soviet Union was the ally of Germany for 2 years, while Britain and the US stood up to Germany.
Wouldn't have survived? Without what? Did America provide Russia with 9 million soldiers who were killed? 100,000 tanks maybe?

Talk about shameless revisionism.
 
Well. No arguing with logic like that.
Where was the Soviet Army in mid 1944?
Why did Stalin have to be arm twisted into helping the Polish on the way to Germany?
No doubt the Russians stalled and defeated the Germans on Soviet soil with herculian efforts.
But to say "Russia won the war", is a little bit of a stretch.
 
Wouldn't have survived? Without what? Did America provide Russia with 9 million soldiers who were killed? 100,000 tanks maybe?

Talk about shameless revisionism.

You clearly don't have even an elementary grasp of the historical facts. Most of the trucks the Soviet Army used, a lot of iets railroad equipment, a lot of airplanes, etc. came from the US. Without US support the Soviet Army would have been non-motorized.

And talking about shameless revisionism, I se you continue to ignore the fact that the Soviet Union was the ally of the Nazis for the first two years of the war.
 
Where was the Soviet Army in mid 1944?
Why did Stalin have to be arm twisted into helping the Polish on the way to Germany?
No doubt the Russians stalled and defeated the Germans on Soviet soil with herculian efforts.
But to say "Russia won the war", is a little bit of a stretch.
No more so than this silly refusal to admit to America's contribution as a belated and token gesture. Compare the stats. Compare the combat losses of Russia to America. You really need to look into the Eastern Front. This desire to cast America as the hero is childish and unfounded. They didn't just 'stall' the Germans. They rolled them right back across the border, at massive personal cost, and towards the race for Berlin. Some of you posters here would like to pretend that Russia played no part at all. 1944? When it was all but finished, you mean? Where was America up to the very end of '41?
 
If I have a red line and tell you don't cross it or else, you better believe or else will happen immediately. See the difference?

No. Our President has turned to Congress for a vote of authorization to strike Syria.
Are you inferring that you would strike without authorization?
 
You clearly don't have even an elementary grasp of the historical facts. Most of the trucks the Soviet Army used, a lot of iets railroad equipment, a lot of airplanes, etc. came from the US. Without US support the Soviet Army would have been non-motorized.

And talking about shameless revisionism, I se you continue to ignore the fact that the Soviet Union was the ally of the Nazis for the first two years of the war.
Your wealth of expertise evidently emboldens you to rewrite that 'elementary grasp'. Russia was already motorised. Where did all the T-34s come from? American factories? 100,000 of them? Really? They didn't beat the Germans with American jeeps. lulz
 
No more so than this silly refusal to admit to America's contribution as a belated and token gesture. Compare the stats. Compare the combat losses of Russia to America. You really need to look into the Eastern Front. This desire to cast America as the hero is childish and unfounded. They didn't just 'stall' the Germans. They rolled them right back across the border, at massive personal cost, and towards the race for Berlin. Some of you posters here would like to pretend that Russia played no part at all. 1944? When it was all but finished, you mean? Where was America up to the very end of '41?
Stats?
So the Soviets lost more men? So what? They were ill equipped, hell they dug a moat 5000 miles long around Moscow to keep the Germans at bay. And they still got within 20 miles of the Kremlin.
Had the US not got involved, the Germans would have had many more men to send to the Russian fronts and continued the offensive.
But the US and its allies knew that a Germany that large was not to be accepted and got into the war.
Had we not, Russia would have fallen. Russia was lucky German was not able to fight on two fronts.
And I have never said that Russia played no part, but they were allowed to go into Berlin first for payback. Much to Pattons dismay.
And if you really want criticism? What did Russia do at the very end of the war. Wall off East and West Berlin, engage in a Cold War for over 50 years, attempt to do just what Hitler did and expand its communist policies accross the globe and spark wars that killed millions more.
Well, until they got their asses handed to them in Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
Oh look, it's Bush's fault again. It never gets old with you does it?

I don't owe you anything and will be comfortable making comparisons in every case where the logic carries through. It's best you learned that.

I'm not even sure what that supposed to mean. What you call "Bush's fault" is just basic causality. If you do things in the present, then you did those things for all time.

In fifty thousand years Bush will still have done it. In a million. In five million.
 
Last edited:
I don't owe you anything and will be comfortable making comparisons in every case where the logic carries through. It's best you learned that.

I'm not even sure what that supposed to mean. What you call "Bush's fault" is just basic causality. If you do things then you did those things.

Really, okay well you need to learn in the case of the Iraq war there was nearly unanimous belief that WMDs existed prior to the invasion, which was one of several premises for invading. In the current case, there is no universal belief about who used the WMDs, and st still being debated internationally and within Congress. But nonetheless, Obama and Kerry was to surge forward.
 
Stats?
So the Soviets lost more men? So what? They were ill equipped, hell they dug a moat 5000 miles long around Moscow to keep the Germans at bay. And they still got within 20 miles of the Kremlin.
Had the US not got involved, the Germans would have had many more men to send to the Russian fronts and continued the offensive.
But the US and its allies knew that a Germany that large was not to be accepted and got into the war.
Had we not, Russia would have fallen. Russia was lucky German was not able to fight on two fronts.
Luck played no part of it. Simple logistics belies your misplaced worship of US involvement. Luck couldn't have allowed Russia to single-henadedly beat off over a dozen times as many divisions as the US ever had to deal with. Luck clearly didn't prevent the loss of 9 million Russian combatants, as compared with 292,000 Americans.
 
Luck played no part of it. Simple logistics belies your misplaced worship of US involvement. Luck couldn't have allowed Russia to single-henadedly beat off over a dozen times as many divisions as the US ever had to deal with. Luck clearly didn't prevent the loss of 9 million Russian combatants, as compared with 292,000 Americans.
Worship? How about just the truth. Russia was losing men at an alarming rate.
Had Germany been able to call up another 100K men and not had them fighting the US in France. Russia very well may be part of Germany to this day.
And I agree, the US and its allies would have had a much harder time beating the Germans back to Germany had they not been tied up in Russia.
The allies were very lucky that Germany could not recall what was left of its army in Russia in time to fight them.
Luck played a huge part in all of the war. On both sides.
But if you want to stick to the "Russia won the war", knock yourself out.
 
I am going to just throw this here for the heck of it:

What if this Al-Qaeda is no longer as evil as it once was with Bin Laden stationed in Afghanistan? You have been kicking some Al-Qaedan butt for so long that perhaps these are now the remaining good guys?

There are no good al Qaeda.
 
Really, okay well you need to learn in the case of the Iraq war there was nearly unanimous belief that WMDs existed prior to the invasion, which was one of several premises for invading. In the current case, there is no universal belief about who used the WMDs, and st still being debated internationally and within Congress. But nonetheless, Obama and Kerry was to surge forward.

You are wrong. The UN inspectors stated no WMDs had been found and they had unimpeded access. I can remember stating that in a College classroom at the time and being accused of being unpatriotic.
 
Back
Top Bottom